The Village Where the Neo-Nazis Rule

[Franzl]

Not very good news. But, if we are realistic: What can the government do?

It can stop criminalizing speech and making the neo-Nazis look like they have the moral high ground.

Physically attacking politicians and their property is "speech" in your book ? Interesting.

I imagine he's refering to laws in Germany banning denial of the Holocaust...publicly showing a swatstika...etc. And those laws are indeed quite stupid.

I'd prefer to let the public see and judge that type of behavior rather than criminalize it.

[Franzl]

A repeal of those laws means giving in to the NPD's demands and handing them a victory. Which is the main and maybe only reason I'd oppose a repeal.

So you oppose expanding freedom of speech for merely political reasons? I hate the NPD as much as the next person, but in this case, they're right: their freedom to spread hate is unfairly being restricted.

Isn't criminalizing it giving them a chance to play the "we're being oppressed" card much more easily?I think the German public is able to handle it being out in the open.

[Franzl]

You can disagree with me but please don't call me a "freedom hater", because that's silly.

I wouldn't go that far...but it's certainly authoritarian to draw a line between acceptable und unacceptable speech.

There's a pretty large potential for abuse there.

[Franzl]

I suppose my question is: Why do we ban speech you consider hateful? Do you honestly think it prevents violence?

I always believe you need a pretty strong argument to limit freedom...not merely that certain groups feel that their feelings are hurt. I don't believe in a right to not be offended.

[Franzl]

You're right about the libel laws. I suppose it's a limit on speech as well...but is it really the same thing? You have to say something about someone that can be proven as false. Whereas "I hate Turks", as stupid as such a statement is....is merely an opinion to which one is entitled. Keeping someone from expressing their feelings doesn't make them go away.

I'm not accusing you of this in this case...but I often get the feeling that people that want to ban stuff, whether it be a political opinion or...say...alcohol during the prohibition era...think banning something is a victory against whatever it is that is banned.

It seems to me, as far as tolerance of umpopular snd hateful views are concerned...that we're not really doing anyone a favor by pretending we can "ban" it. If something is out in the open...it seems that it's safer and easier to observe (and ridicule, of course).

[Franzl]

Hateful speech is the denial of someone's humanity, it is a discrimination because it violates the principle of equality between human beings. The State is in charge of guaranteeing this principle.

I would answer that speech, whatever type of speech, is unable to "violate" that principle. Allowing speech doesn't lead to inequality before the law. The state is responsible for making sure that people are not put at a disadvantage becausr of race, gender, ethnic origin, etc....which includes anti-discrimination laws to make sure store owners can't deny service due to such reasons, for example.

Voicing an opinion, though, doesn't put anyone at a disadvantage though.